1,942
edits
Changes
m
→St Jerome et al on coitus interruptus
::I don’t know what it means to suggest that I’m intent on misunderstanding. I either understand, or do not. In any case, that’s not what I mean. It seems that sperma in this passage implies both offspring (especially in its first occurrence) and ejaculate (especially in its second occurrence, along with the meaning of offspring). In any case, we both agree that this passage is conveying that Onan spilt his ejaculate on the ground instead of in the vagina of Tamar when he had sex with her, in order to avoid procreating a child that would legally be his brother’s. If we both agree that this is the meaning, what is the significance of St Jerome’s inclusion of “semen” as the direct object of “fundebat”? Surely none? --[[User:Gmharvey|Gmharvey]] ([[User talk:Gmharvey|talk]]) 08:49, June 28, 2018 (UTC)
You ares till still misstating it. In Gen 38.9, there are two instances of zera/sperma, both of which refer to offspring. If the second instance referred to semen, as you just claimed, the text would read, "so that he would not give ejaculate to his brother." Jerome added a word to the text. which is something Orthodox don't generally like -- think filioque! I agree that it is implied by the text, but not specified. I say all this because you objected to my saying Jerome added the word, at which point you claimed the verse mentions vera/sperma twice -- it does, but in neither case does it refer to semen. I'm happy to let this question of what is in the verse endas long a you stop claiming that either instance of zera/sperma in the MT or LXX refers to semen. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] ([[User talk:Fr Lev|talk]]) 14:34, June 28, 2018 (UTC)
:I’m not sure what you mean by “Greek” views on marriage? Please elaborate. Also, how is approval of contraception any less unbiblical than its condemnation (by Jerome or whomever)? No verse either directly approves of or condemns its use. Is everything that isn’t forbidden in the bible moral, or edifying for the Christian? It should also be noted that “for the procreation of children” does not necessarily mean that its enjoyment it to be precluded, just that it is naturally oriented towards this (i.e. procreation is at least one of its teloi), and that actively preventing sex from leading to procreation would be unnatural. This, I argue, is very Orthodox, and very Patristic.
